SilencerCo Scythe Ti failures

[Matt5266]

Well. Fun. I just picked one of these up the other day for a 6.5 cm and a 7PRC I’m putting together.

First day and first message and already kicked in the nuts, welcome to Rokslide

 

[1000yards]

No issues here although my round count is low and my loads fairly mild. ~50 rounds of 308 with a 22" barrel, and ~50 rounds of 30-06 with a 20" barrel. I have enjoyed this suppressor so far and I was even considering purchasing a second, but for now I'll wait for more information to come out. Silencerco's nonresponse to this issue does not inspire any confidence.

 

[jkoehle1]

Silencerco's nonresponse to this issue does not inspire any confidence.

Worst part

 

[wyosam]

I believe part of the quick turn around is they don’t have to log it in? I assume it’s like a firearm at an ffl and if it’s not overnight then the amount of paperwork is different.

Yep, save a bunch of paperwork if it doesn’t spend the night. AB does the same thing when you send one in for a reflex swap. Always back out the same day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[intunegp]

Worst part

SilencerCo has said they're selling over a thousand Scythes per month and seeing a failure rate of less than 1% and that they're not concerned about it. All signs point to them repairing that less than 1% quickly and without any headache for the owner. Not sure what they'd address.

I think the can came out in like September of 2023. So assuming their numbers are accurate, which we have no reason not to, we're talking like 20,000 of them in the wild and SilencerCo has seen less than 200 of them come in for warranty.

They used to say if you commute by car your entire life you have a 1% chance of dying in a car accident...nobody's biking to work in case their 1% ticket gets pulled today. Failures suck, and I'm not saying they're acceptable or justifying it in any way, but I don't know that I'd let this thread influence my buying decision at this point.

FWIW I'm hoping to start my wait on either a Scythe or a Nomad TI XC soon and I'm back and forth about a can with known failures that is likely to get repaired quickly and easily versus a can from a company that has a terrible CS track record.

 

[Formidilosus]

SilencerCo has said they're selling over a thousand Scythes per month and seeing a failure rate of less than 1% and that they're not concerned about it. All signs point to them repairing that less than 1% quickly and without any headache for the owner. Not sure what they'd address.

I think the can came out in like September of 2023. So assuming their numbers are accurate, which we have no reason not to, we're talking like 20,000 of them in the wild and SilencerCo has seen less than 200 of them come in for warranty.

They used to say if you commute by car your entire life you have a 1% chance of dying in a car accident...nobody's biking to work in case their 1% ticket gets pulled today. Failures suck, and I'm not saying they're acceptable or justifying it in any way, but I don't know that I'd let this thread influence my buying decision at this point.

FWIW I'm hoping to start my wait on either a Scythe or a Nomad TI XC soon and I'm back and forth about a can with known failures that is likely to get repaired quickly and easily versus a can from a company that has a terrible CS track record.

There are 20’ish failed cans in this thread- some, with multiple failures.

Would anyone accept if there were-

20 examples of the same rifle where in normal use the barrel burst?

20 examples of the same factory ammo where in normal use cases ruptured and blew the action up?

20 examples of the same scope where in normal use it broke in half?

20 examples in normal use of the same scope mounts breaking (in this case, yes- Tally LW).

Etc etc.


Using manufacturers “approved” setups- failures are more than any can I can remember- people with multiple back to back failures. It’s more than a “little” concerning- it’s ridiculous. And dangerous.

 

[intunegp]

There are 20’ish failed cans in this thread- some, with multiple failures.

Would anyone accept if there were-

20 examples of the same rifle where in normal use the barrel burst?

20 examples of the same factory ammo where in normal use cases ruptured and blew the action up?

20 examples of the same scope where in normal use it broke in half?

20 examples in normal use of the same scope mounts breaking (in this case, yes- Tally LW).

Etc etc.


Using manufacturers “approved” setups- failures are more than any can I can remember- people with multiple back to back failures. It’s more than a “little” concerning- it’s ridiculous. And dangerous.

I have no horse in this race, and I clearly stated I didn't find the failures acceptable. I didn't say anything was a "little" concerning. I was just pointing out the he-said/she-said of it all. This thread is the top Google result for people searching about issues with the Scythe so of course people getting on the internet to discuss failures are going to congregate here but it would be foolish to pretend it represents the entirety of Scythe owners. All products can fail, and buyers have to determine whether they're willing to accept the risk of failure associated with a given product.

Maybe SilencerCo are a bunch of filthy liars selling defective cans and laughing all the way to the bank about it. Maybe they've made changes and improved the cans along the way without a big announcement. Maybe they haven't done anything, their numbers are real, and they're just rolling down the road with less than 1% of Scythes failing. Maybe they dropped the ball on caliber/barrel length restrictions and they're in too deep to admit it. Nobody here knows and we probably never will.

 

[Marbles]

Nobody here knows and we probably never will.

This was the point you originally responded to, but basically said was invalid.

This is what is most concerning, no answer from SiCo as to why some are failing when used within their stated parameters. It is not a good look.

 

[FalconDriver]

No for me, but only a few hundred rounds of .308

 

[intunegp]

This was the point you originally responded to, but basically said was invalid.

This is what is most concerning, no answer from SiCo as to why some are failing when used within their stated parameters. It is not a good look.

I didn't say anything was invalid. I said sometimes things fail, and that this thread isn't a good representation of the percentage of Scythes in the field that have failed. SilencerCo told the person here that actually inquired that they have what they consider to be an insignificant number of failures and it is not of concern to them. That is the answer unless they come out and say something different...doesn't mean anyone has to like it or be okay with it.

Personally I believe it is reasonable to take a risk that has a 1% chance of resulting in an undesirable outcome. I would wager we all do so each and every day in some way or another.

 

[ScreamingPotato]

I didn't say anything was invalid. I said sometimes things fail, and that this thread isn't a good representation of the percentage of Scythes in the field that have failed. SilencerCo told the person here that actually inquired that they have what they consider to be an insignificant number of failures and it is not of concern to them. That is the answer unless they come out and say something different...doesn't mean anyone has to like it or be okay with it.

Personally I believe it is reasonable to take a risk that has a 1% chance of resulting in an undesirable outcome. I would wager we all do so each and every day in some way or another.

Are we taking them at face value that they're seeing "about a 1% failure rate" though, or do we think they might be stretching that a little bit to the lower end or worse just guestimating?

 

[JohnJohnson]

Personally I believe it is reasonable to take a risk that has a 1% chance of resulting in an undesirable outcome. I would wager we all do so each and every day in some way or another.

This feels like the way people dismiss the scope droptesting all over again. The only evidence we have of the 1% number is from the manufacturer which obviously has a vested interest in downplaying an issue.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

Personally I believe it is reasonable to take a risk that has a 1% chance of resulting in an undesirable outcome.

Not when purchasing a freaking firearm part!

 

[Runwilderness]

All products can fail, and buyers have to determine whether they're willing to accept the risk of failure associated with a given product.

I disagree. This only makes sense if a manufacturer is fully transparent with failure rates and makes every good faith attempt to educate the consumer on how to interpret those data relative to the possible use cases.

Perhaps I’ll get sick after eating dinner this week. E. coli outbreaks happen, I know that. But when I pickup a package of brats, I expect the manufacturer is following best practices for food safety. It shouldn’t be my responsibility to guess whether Joe washed his hands after taking a s—t. If they want to save money on soap, they better not also label the package ‘Tastes great fully cooked and raw!”

It seems SilencerCo is taking the later option. And I own Scythe so this isn’t a hypothetical post for me.

 

[intunegp]

Are we taking them at face value that they're seeing "about a 1% failure rate" though, or do we think they might be stretching that a little bit to the lower end or worse just guestimating?

Where do we draw the line on inflating their failure number or decreasing their sales number based on our distrust and how do we know that it is any more accurate?

This feels like the way people dismiss the scope droptesting all over again. The only evidence we have of the 1% number is from the manufacturer which obviously has a vested interest in downplaying an issue.

Same question as above. The argument with scope dropping is always that getting a random bad one says way more than getting a random good one. Seems like based on this thread and SilencerCo's number that you're far more likely to get a good Scythe than blow one up. Does anyone really think the 156 voters in our Rokslide poll make up or represent a significant portion of Scythe owners?

Not when purchasing a freaking firearm part!

That's fair, but seems like the market basically disappears if you don't buy anything that has failed in the past.

I disagree. This only makes sense if a manufacturer is fully transparent with failure rates and makes every good faith attempt to educate the consumer on how to interpret those data relative to the possible use cases.

Perhaps I’ll get sick after eating dinner this week. E. coli outbreaks happen, I know that. But when I pickup a package of brats, I expect the manufacturer is following best practices for food safety. It shouldn’t be my responsibility to guess whether Joe washed his hands after taking a s—t. If they want to save money on soap, they better not also label the package ‘Tastes great fully cooked and raw!”

It seems SilencerCo is taking the later option. And I own Scythe so this isn’t a hypothetical post for me.

We have no proof that they are not being transparent with failure rates...just the assumption that a big company must be lying to cover their ass. Maybe they are but nobody really knows that. I don't see how your brat situation translates...you're saying you think SilencerCo is just purposefully putting out a shitty product and hoping you don't shoot enough to find out? Seems like an odd business strategy but that's above my pay grade.

 

[JohnJohnson]

you're saying you think SilencerCo is just purposefully putting out a shitty product and hoping you don't shoot enough to find out?

That's the business model of 90% of scope companies with regards to zero retention and to some extent turret tracking. It's also the business model of Savage rifles, with their bad extractors/ejectors that frequently cause issues for people who actually shoot a lot. Why exactly would it be a stretch to wonder that?

Seems like based on this thread and SilencerCo's number that you're far more likely to get a good Scythe than blow one up.

What is your maximum acceptable percentage of suppressors, which are a pain in the ass to buy, blowing up?

 

[intunegp]

That's the business model of 90% of scope companies with regards to zero retention and to some extent turret tracking. It's also the business model of Savage rifles, with their bad extractors/ejectors that frequently cause issues for people who actually shoot a lot. Why exactly would it be a stretch to wonder that?

What is your maximum acceptable percentage of suppressors, which are a pain in the ass to buy, blowing up?

Probably greater than zero. There's a TBAC and an AB failure reported in the suppressor failure by brand thread...is that worth a boycott?

 

[Runwilderness]

We have no proof that they are not being transparent with failure rates...just the assumption that a big company must be lying to cover their ass. Maybe they are but nobody really knows that. I don't see how your brat situation translates...you're saying you think SilencerCo is just purposefully putting out a shitty product and hoping you don't shoot enough to find out? Seems like an odd business strategy but that's above my pay grade.

I’m saying that I’m a register Scythe owner and I have not received a formal email from them stating their failure rate or modifying their barrel length/caliber restrictions.

I don’t believe transparency = some consumer chats with customer service or an expo booth employee and posts what they were told to a forum.

I’m also not claiming that Silencer Co is intentionally selling products that are subpar because they want to jack up profits at the expense of consumer safety.

But there are lots of examples of less that forthright communication around consumer safety issues (see for example Boeing), so yeah, I’ll admit to a level of corporate vs consumer mistrust. But even if they are busting their butts to fix every weak spot in their manufacturing flow to sell a reliable product going forward, nothing that I’ve read here meets the level of transparency that I, as a normal go shoot my rifle on weekends and hope to see an elk this Fall sort of guy, believe would allow me to make a truly informed decision about whether I should or should not shoot the can attached to my rifle.

 

[HighUintas]

In my discussion with them on the phone asking about this issue while communicating the failure rate and types that have been collected here, the response I got felt canned and not transparent, almost as if they're completely unaware (or not acknowledging) there's failures happening when it's used within their mfr recommendations and they say it's due to people doing rapid fire on semi autos.

After that conversation, I do not particularly trust them without seeing a public statement on the issue.

 

[SloppyJ]

I spoke with customer service this afternoon to confirm the path i needed to take for warranty. The first question I asked them is if anything has been done to resolve these issues or if they had narrowed it down to a specific S/N range and a batch batch of metal.

My attitude changed when the rep told me that very few of the cans had actually been a manufacturing issue. He stated that most have been on the user. I asked how that could be when there were no barrel restrictions and I kindly told him that he's completely full of shit. There's quite a few examples floating around of failures with bolt rifles.

I changed the subject to see if they could help me out with my cover. He again brought up that most of these failures were on the user and that they would only do something if it were a SilencerCo issue. I audibly laughed.

I quickly realized that while I only have on SilencerCo can, that's one too many. I won't be buying any more of their shit.

Honestly considering putting it on consignment at my local shop when it comes back in and picking up something else.